In fact, if the number of satellites is small, you could just carry around a chart for each one from which you could read the bearing and elevation, no trigonometric tables required.

It was only half a dozen satellites, sure, but the beam width of the antennas was about a degree or two, and to cover all the points on land that that satellite could see at the required resolution would require a coupla dozen pages for each bird, and they would be out of date if it was moved in orbit (it didn't happen often, but it happened), vs. 3 or 4 pages of trig tables and a page (maybe 2) of instructions that you could follow with pencil and paper if you didn't have a 4 function calculator that never went out of date, but, sure, I guess that would work.

As long as we are discussing this, you do not need to climb to a great height to see ships disappear over the horizon due to curvature of the Earth. [...]

Every summer on my beach vacation I spend a little time trying to detect that ships disappear over the horizon, which many say we can observe for ourselves. I've never seen it. Even on beautiful clear days, the horizon is indistinct on the very tiny scale of the vertical spread of a ship way out there where it starts to become hard to see. Ships look smaller and smaller, and I sure can't tell if it's because the Earth is blocking my view of their lower portions, or just because they are more distant. I have never yet been able to tell they are disappearing over a curve. They just get smaller and more indistinct, like the horizon does.

I'm sure the earth is round, but I'm also pretty sure this is no way to tell. And I've been looking since 1978 when my university astronomy advisor first challenged us to.

Hmm... as has been noted by several people, atmospheric/refractive conditions can be critical here. Did you try it on a clear day using a telescope, watching a ship with a decently tall mast?

But, yeah, if the ships just disappear into the haze, or the refraction is unusual, I agree it is not a reliable method.

I think it would be easier to see the effect from the other way around. Go out on a boat and look back at the shore. About 5 miles out, you can see treetops but you can't see the beach. If there's a mountain near the shore, you'll be able to see it more than 10 miles from shore, after you can't see the trees at all. You could also try this with a lighthouse. You can see the top long after the bottom is no longer visible.

Charles Johnson, of the (ugly) Flat Earth Research Society claimed that he made observations of boats on the Salton Sea (this was a long time ago, back when there actually were boats on the Salton Sea.) He claimed that there was no "hull down" visual effect.

I've done the same thing, the length of San Diego bay, and, yes, there is a very definite "hull down" visual effect, even over a measly four miles of water.

I'm sure Johnson would say I was deceived by "choppy water" that rises up between me and the sailboat, making the hull appear to be below the level of the water.

That's the big thing to remember with these guys: You Cannot Win. They have an answer for everything, even if it's complete hogwash.

I've done the same thing, the length of San Diego bay, and, yes, there is a very definite "hull down" visual effect, even over a measly four miles of water.

I'm sure Johnson would say I was deceived by "choppy water" that rises up between me and the sailboat, making the hull appear to be below the level of the water.

This is the first of a series; in this one, he uses a cruise ship, zoomed in, to show horizon occlusion, and also addresses the fact that perspective cannot answer why the sun and moon do not get smaller as they rise and set.

The FECTs are pathetic and in need of therapy. I have read and watched too much of this stuff. It is sad that D-K is not painful to these people, because it is hurting my head.

I can't think of a plausible answer either (apart from the obvious one!!!)

This was my go to argument for many years. Then I saw some leading idjit's cosmos where the Sun is always above the Earth, circling about above the tropics. The apparent position of the Sun, including darkness, is caused by a magical, amazing system of refraction that makes it appear to us mortals that the Sun is rising, setting, etc.

Of course this fantastic cosmology just happens to make the motions of the Sun and so on to appear exactly like the Scientific explanation, down to corrections for elliptical orbits, etc.

But with no Science at all? No explanation for the refraction, the motions, or anything at all. After all, you don't have to explain what is true. (Aside from "explaining" why obvious debunking arguments are wrong.)

I read or heard some diatribe where the FE invoked Occam's razor, saying that the flat earth model was simpler and more sensible. One of them was saying that gravity is caused by the Earth's upward acceleration – because, when he falls, he sees the Earth rising up to meet him, which is a simpler explanation than gravitons swarming up to pull him down.

But the circling sun model makes no sense and is not simpler than celestial mechanics. These people just seem unwilling to hold really big numbers like Gms, Pms, Zms and the like in their heads. Everything is in this little bubble – that is accelerating upward from/to .....?

The Royal Princess cruise ship gives a draft of 28' and a height of 217' (not sure whether "height" mean from keel or from waterline). The mainmast of the USS Constitution (Old Ironsides) is listed as 207'. So, rather similar.

The figure you are looking for is "air draft". Panamax sized ships (which is a common mid range sized commercial vessel) usually have an air draft of a little less than 200ft but it can be a little over. Tall ships as you say tended to have masts around the same mark.

There was a time when such a story would, without even the tiniest fraction of a doubt, have been an obvious spoof. These days, there's just this tiny little skerrick of a moment where I have to think "wait, that isn't real is it?"

I don't get why this is a thing now, in 2017. I remember 20 years ago reading about the Flat Earth Society, which consisted of an old guy, his wife, a printing press, and a newspaper with subscribers in the low dozens. Now Flat Earthers are back, for some reason? WTF?

FWIW, Creationist != Flat Earther. I know a few dozen devout creationists. Not a one of them believes that the Earth is flat.

Have to remember that the ship thing was noticed back in the day of tall ships with great masts and sails. It may not be as noticeable today with a ship with a flatter profile.

In lieu of a tall ship, we can use the Chicago skyline, which tops out at 1450 feet. Get on your speedboat at Navy Pier, head toward the Michigan shore, and watch as the Willis Tower sinks into the waves. Disregarding atmospheric refraction, the top of the antenna masts should finally disappear when you're about 47 miles out. Even including refraction, the massive height of the tower should make the effect obvious.

I don't get why this is a thing now, in 2017. I remember 20 years ago reading about the Flat Earth Society, which consisted of an old guy, his wife, a printing press, and a newspaper with subscribers in the low dozens. Now Flat Earthers are back, for some reason? WTF?

In lieu of a tall ship, we can use the Chicago skyline, which tops out at 1450 feet. Get on your speedboat at Navy Pier, head toward the Michigan shore, and watch as the Willis Tower sinks into the waves. Disregarding atmospheric refraction, the top of the antenna masts should finally disappear when you're about 47 miles out. Even including refraction, the massive height of the tower should make the effect obvious.

Disregard refraction? To a flat earther it's all refraction, including the optical illusion of sunset.

This is also why the laser ideas above won't work. Refraction! Just because it looks straight doesn't mean it is! Of course this undermines the "You can just look at things and see that the Earth is flat!" argument.

In lieu of a tall ship, we can use the Chicago skyline, which tops out at 1450 feet. Get on your speedboat at Navy Pier, head toward the Michigan shore, and watch as the Willis Tower sinks into the waves. Disregarding atmospheric refraction, the top of the antenna masts should finally disappear when you're about 47 miles out. Even including refraction, the massive height of the tower should make the effect obvious.

Ironically, YouTube is full of videos of exactly this that ''prove'' the earth is flat.

I don't get why this is a thing now, in 2017. I remember 20 years ago reading about the Flat Earth Society, which consisted of an old guy, his wife, a printing press, and a newspaper with subscribers in the low dozens. Now Flat Earthers are back, for some reason? WTF?

FWIW, Creationist != Flat Earther. I know a few dozen devout creationists. Not a one of them believes that the Earth is flat.

All the flat earthers I've run into are crazy CTers. I've never run into any that are creationists. Not saying there aren't any but I don't think it's prevalent. To be a flat earther you have to believe every world government is in on it. NASA has been lying forever. Every scientist is in on it. The government has troops to keep people from traveling to the edge. There are a lot of moving parts other than just God.

Some rapper called B.o.B has apparently begun an effort on the gimme-money site to fund a rocket launch to prove his FECT. Highly successful, he has apparently raise over $200, almost 0.1% of his goal.

Just out of curiosity, is that "four corners of the earth" in the original, or is it a figment of the translation? Of course, they probably believe the bible was written in English anyway. But "four corners of the earth" sounds an awful lot like a language dependent figure.

Recently, I read of a guy who triumphantly proved that the Earth is flat by taking a carpenter's level on a plane flight to show that cruising was always level: if the Earth were not flat, the pilot would have to keep changing the attitude (dip the nose) to adjust for the curvature, which should show up on the level.

Now that you have finished cleaning beverages from you screen/keyboard, what I want to know is "so what?" For a picosecond, imagine that the FEs were correct, that the Earth is indeed some sort of flat thing: what then? What do they hope to gain or change by proving a flat Earth? Does turtle soup become a sin? I mean, I am just not understanding the why.

If the earth were flat everyone would see the same stars, but there are different stars in the northern and southern hemisphere because the earth is round.

In lieu of a tall ship, we can use the Chicago skyline, which tops out at 1450 feet. Get on your speedboat at Navy Pier, head toward the Michigan shore, and watch as the Willis Tower sinks into the waves. Disregarding atmospheric refraction, the top of the antenna masts should finally disappear when you're about 47 miles out. Even including refraction, the massive height of the tower should make the effect obvious.

[nitpick] You mean the Sears Tower. There is no such thing as the "Willis" Tower. Never has been, never will be. [/nitpick]

What they say is that the Earth is a pizza and the sun-lamp-thing moves in a circle above it. That the sunset is just an illusion of perspective (it only appears to be setting because it looks close to the horizon because it is so far away). This glaring flaw in this argument is that you can watch a sunset and see the sun get bigger as it crosses the horizon – as with the harvest moon. I cannot see how the perspective model could address that. For most of the day, the sun subtends exactly the same angle, except at sunrise and sunset, when it is supposed to be farther away but somehow looks bigger.

Sorry for being late to the party, but that's just an illusion. It's been known for centuries and definitely proven to be an illusion using photography today. Interestingly, there is no consensus on what causes it.

Sorry for being late to the party, but that's just an illusion. It's been known for centuries and definitely proven to be an illusion using photography today. Interestingly, there is no consensus on what causes it.

Now, there is the cute bit where the sun's angular rate of movement through the sky slows down, right at sunrise and sunset. The atmosphere refracts the image. When you see the sun exactly bisected by the horizon...in "actuality" the sun has already fully set. You're looking "around the corner" just a bit.

A flat-earther might say that this explains ships sinking behind the horizon...but the fact it that this is exactly opposite of an explanation! Ships don't sink behind the horizon quite as fast as they would if you were seeing them in a vacuum.

The "apparent distance hypothesis" is the only explanation of the Moon illusion that makes sense to me. Explanations that depend on the perception of other objects in the field of vision (trees, buildings, clouds, etc) can't explain why the moon illusion still appears when the moon sets over the cloudless ocean, where there's nothing else in sight.

Well, we cannot know for sure that it does not have four corners. The edge is the Antarctic Ice Wall that holds in the oceans. No one knows what is beyond the Ice Wall. It could have corners, out there in the misty uncertainty.

Well, we cannot know for sure that it does not have four corners. The edge is the Antarctic Ice Wall that holds in the oceans. No one knows what is beyond the Ice Wall. It could have corners, out there in the misty uncertainty.

ST's vBulletin 3 Responsive Styles

Our newly refreshed styles in 2017, brings the old vb3 to the new level, responsive and modern feel. It comes with 3 colors with or without sidebar, fixed sized or fluid. Default vbulletin 3 style made responsive also available in the pack.
Purchase Our Style Pack Now